Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Physicians' Joint Report: At Least 1.3 Million Lives Lost to US-Led War on Terror [View all]F4lconF16
(3,747 posts)24. Conservative talking points
Party loyalty is a curious thing. If, for example, one is familiar with the history of primary and general elections since, say, 1964 -- approximately one-half of a century -- there are several examples of a lack of party loyalty damaging a Democratic candidates chances for victory. Yet most of these were the result of the moderate-to-conservative wing of the Democratic Party. Indeed, the lone example that the moderate-to-conservative wing still attempts to blame on the left is the tired, weak argument concerning Ralph Nader in Florida in the 2000 election.
If only the left hadnt cast protest votes for Nader -- believing that theres no difference between Bush and Gore -- wed have won the election! We still see this uninformed appeal to emotion, even on DU:GD discussions. It requires one to ignore the fact that Gore did win the vote in Florida, and the republican party/ US Supreme Court stole the election. This was very well documented in Vincent Bugliosis The Betrayal of America: How the Supreme Court Undermined the Constitution and Chose Our President (Thunders Mouth Press; 2001).
To blame the eventual outcome of that election on the left -- some of whom did vote for Nader -- makes as much sense as blaming the elderly Floridians who, confused by the butterfly ballot, cast votes for Patrick Buchanan. More, it ignores an important reality -- one documented in Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.s Journals: 1952 - 2000 (Penguin; 2007): a good many of the establishment Democrats voted for George W. Bush. The reason? Some disliked Al Gore for creating distance between himself and Bill Clinton, while others despised his choice for vice president.
Still, Al Gore won the 2000 presidential election. Any and all blame goes to the Supreme Court.
If only the left hadnt cast protest votes for Nader -- believing that theres no difference between Bush and Gore -- wed have won the election! We still see this uninformed appeal to emotion, even on DU:GD discussions. It requires one to ignore the fact that Gore did win the vote in Florida, and the republican party/ US Supreme Court stole the election. This was very well documented in Vincent Bugliosis The Betrayal of America: How the Supreme Court Undermined the Constitution and Chose Our President (Thunders Mouth Press; 2001).
To blame the eventual outcome of that election on the left -- some of whom did vote for Nader -- makes as much sense as blaming the elderly Floridians who, confused by the butterfly ballot, cast votes for Patrick Buchanan. More, it ignores an important reality -- one documented in Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.s Journals: 1952 - 2000 (Penguin; 2007): a good many of the establishment Democrats voted for George W. Bush. The reason? Some disliked Al Gore for creating distance between himself and Bill Clinton, while others despised his choice for vice president.
Still, Al Gore won the 2000 presidential election. Any and all blame goes to the Supreme Court.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026420812
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
40 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Physicians' Joint Report: At Least 1.3 Million Lives Lost to US-Led War on Terror [View all]
RiverLover
Mar 2015
OP
Those that thought it was OK to vote for Nader because "there is no difference" should think about
Renew Deal
Mar 2015
#22
Exactly. Reducing it to a preschooler's view of the world is the only way to justify these horrors.
nomorenomore08
Mar 2015
#12
We have been deceived, manipulated and made apathetic about voting. Reagan started it with
Dont call me Shirley
Mar 2015
#18
If their "Practical Politics" calls for condoning the killing of 1.3 million people,
Maedhros
Mar 2015
#27
And this is why I can not and will not support those that will not speak out against the MIC
F4lconF16
Mar 2015
#26
I will not trade 1.3 million lives simply so we can claim victory in the tribal squabble
Maedhros
Mar 2015
#29